HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

GDT: Canucks @ Flames l Gm.3 l Nucks 2-1 l Nucks Lead 2-1

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2004, 05:01 PM
  #101
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
First off I am blind. I didn't see the bottom part of your post in the other game thread on the Vancouver board. Sorry about that. But there are key differences between the two hits.

Jovo went down into the lower boards, he was hit farther away from the boards than Iginla was. Iginla hit the divider between the glass and boards face first. Consider this; if he didn't wear his visor, he would have been terribly injured or worse.

Do you see Sakic ever fight? Yzerman? Do you see anyone ever do anything like that to Stevens?
Let me get this straight... "terribly injured or worse"... hmm, worse than terribly injured would have to be death. So, you are saying that without wearing a visor Iginla would have been killed by Ohlund? Greaaat. Look, I thought it was a penalty no question about it. But buddy you should give yourself a little more time to think these things out before you post'em, because that is just silly. The boarding penalty assessed to Simon on Salo was a much harder shot to the head and I don't recall you writing anything about how Salo's visor saved him from a terrible injury or whatever. Stop being such a homer. It was a missed boarding call. I don't like those kinds of hits at all, but Iginla is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes down to questionable hits at times, so I'm sure not going to feel sorry for him.


Last edited by quat: 04-12-2004 at 05:09 PM.
quat is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:16 PM
  #102
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakeeye
Not really. If you are going to whine about the trap, dont play the trap. The situation is irrelevent.
Well let's see.

1. It's very relevent. Playing the trap to defend a lead is something a ton of teams do. In fact, it's almost necessary in the playoffs. Playing it for a full 60 minutes every game is completely different.

2. The Canucks played a 1-4 style. That is not the trap. The trap is 0-5. Close, but not quite.

3. Since when do I play the trap? I can whine about it all I want, I'm not the one controlling the Canucks.

Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:20 PM
  #103
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ryan
Well let's see.

1. It's very relevent. Playing the trap to defend a lead is something a ton of teams do. In fact, it's almost necessary in the playoffs. Playing it for a full 60 minutes every game is completely different.

2. The Canucks played a 1-4 style. That is not the trap. The trap is 0-5. Close, but not quite.

3. Since when do I play the trap? I can whine about it all I want, I'm not the one controlling the Canucks.
1. So in point 1, you said the Canucks DO play the trap, but in point 2 you say they don't? Make up your mind!

2. The 0-5, 1-5, 2-3, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 are all version of the trap, smart guy.

3. Don't be a stupid. You know when some refers to "us" or "you" they mean the team.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:21 PM
  #104
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ryan
Please.

Everytime Hedberg plays the puck, he shoots it to the same spot.

All the flames have to do is dump it in, go to the corner and wait for Hedberg to give them their present.

Hedberg is no Marty Turco.
I'm gonna tape the next game and count how many different places Hedberg puts the puck. Never thought to look before.

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:44 PM
  #105
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
Quote:
1. So in point 1, you said the Canucks DO play the trap, but in point 2 you say they don't? Make up your mind!

2. The 0-5, 1-5, 2-3, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 are all version of the trap, smart guy.

3. Don't be a stupid. You know when some refers to "us" or "you" they mean the team.
1. No I didn't.

I said playing the trap for 60 minutes is different than playing it when you have a lead. I didn't even mention the Canucks in point 1.

2. No. They aren't. The trap simply means there is no forechecking. Teams have had various styles of forechecking for ages. The idea of the "trap" came into play when some guy decided to not forecheck at all. Think about why it's called the trap. One forechecker is different from none. Admittedly, it isn't much more exciting though.

3. Not being stupid, just being a smartass.


Last edited by Rotting Corpse*: 04-12-2004 at 05:48 PM.
Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:47 PM
  #106
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoast
I'm gonna tape the next game and count how many different places Hedberg puts the puck. Never thought to look before.
Well you do that. I could very well be wrong, but it seems to me that he runs into trouble because the other team can always anticpate where he's going to throw it. Which means they either pick it off, or Hedberg panicks and tries to play it up the middle, which often gets him into even more trouble.

Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:48 PM
  #107
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
It was a missed boarding call. I don't like those kinds of hits at all, but Iginla is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes down to questionable hits at times, so I'm sure not going to feel sorry for him.
really? I'm not saying he's never dished out a questionable hit, but I would say that having watched him since he's been in the league Iginla is not exactly a guy I equate with questionable hits...he's a tough player, but not exactly dirty IMO

looooob is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:49 PM
  #108
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
really? I'm not saying he's never dished out a questionable hit, but I would say that having watched him since he's been in the league Iginla is not exactly a guy I equate with questionable hits...he's a tough player, but not exactly dirty IMO

Sounds just like Ohlund.

Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 05:58 PM
  #109
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ryan
Sounds just like Ohlund.
I expected this response. I agree it DOES sound like Ohlund, but the poster seemed to be implying that Iginla DESERVED what he got because he dishes out similar hits frequently. he doesn't. and I know Ohlund doesn't either. but it was a messy hit. like Gauthier's (unpenalized) and I suppose Simon's (penalized). Either way Iginla responded in a way that suits his playing style (and the likes of Howe,Messier,Neely,Roberts would have responded similarly) but doesn't suit the playing style of a Modano,Sakic or Yzerman as others have pointed out. no biggie.

looooob is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 07:49 PM
  #110
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ryan
2. No. They aren't. The trap simply means there is no forechecking. Teams have had various styles of forechecking for ages. The idea of the "trap" came into play when some guy decided to not forecheck at all. Think about why it's called the trap. One forechecker is different from none. Admittedly, it isn't much more exciting though.
Not true

The point of the neutral zone trap was to make use of the offside rule so that the opposing team cannot gain the zone. There are varieties of the trap, and the 1-4 counts. The jist of it is to clog up the neutral zone. Ever heard of the left wing lock? I believe it was Detriot that came up with that one, a version of the trap. That is just one version of the trap.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 08:00 PM
  #111
Snakeeye
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
You are wasting your time, Splatman. The 1-4 system obviously cannot be the trap becuase the Canucks play it. The Canucks never play the trap.

Snakeeye is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 08:08 PM
  #112
LaVal
Registered User
 
LaVal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatman Phanutier
2. The 0-5, 1-5, 2-3, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 are all version of the trap, smart guy.
those are basically all the formations except the one that the trap actually is. the trap that everybody gets mad over is the 1-3-1 formation. and on the lighter side, i didn't know you could play the trap with your goaltender pulled .

you can't call a 2-1-2 formation a trap. 1 person in the neutral zone doesn't deter players from making neutral zone passes. neither will a 1-2-2 system which is the standard formation. the trap doesn't really become "the trap" until there are 3 or more in the neutral zone, or on the blueline if it becomes a low trap. the Canucks deployed a 1-4 low trap (which really isn't a trap, as Calgary was allowed to do whatever in the neutral zone) which forced the dump-in.

LaVal is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 08:16 PM
  #113
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
I don't know what SP or Snakeeye said, but LaVal's post makes it appear that I was misinformed, so I shall concede my second point.

Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 08:52 PM
  #114
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,119
vCash: 500
The Canucks were trapping in the final 10 minutes. Those who say otherwise are either blind or stupid. 1-4, 1-3-1, and 1-2-2 are all traps. 1 man in forecheck = Trap. Flat out.

That said, for the vast majority of all three games, the Canucks have been playing their usual 2-1-2.

Mizral is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 09:02 PM
  #115
Rotting Corpse*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rotting Corpse* Send a message via MSN to Rotting Corpse*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
The Canucks were trapping in the final 10 minutes. Those who say otherwise are either blind or stupid. .
Thanks for the fine compliment. I see that it was absolutely necessary.

I was misinformed. I already conceded that I was incorrect. No need to let fly with the baseless insults.

Rotting Corpse* is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 09:12 PM
  #116
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ryan
Thanks for the fine compliment. I see that it was absolutely necessary.

I was misinformed. I already conceded that I was incorrect. No need to let fly with the baseless insults.
It wasn't directed at you - I actually didn't read many more than a few of the posts

Mizral is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 09:22 PM
  #117
ZombieMatt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
I don't see what the argument is.

EVERY team plays a form of 'the trap' when up in the third period of a playoff game.

ZombieMatt is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 09:56 PM
  #118
SOS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to SOS Send a message via MSN to SOS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountie
I don't see what the argument is.

EVERY team plays a form of 'the trap' when up in the third period of a playoff game.

Agreed. I don't know why u people think the "trap" is this evil thing. It's a defensive strategy, it's legal, and it works very well. The teams that can execute an airtight trap can go far in the playoffs.

I thought it was an awesome defensive effort by the Canucks in game 3. They got the lead, then shut it down. The trap was airtight with Hedberg in net (stopping the shoot-ins), and honestly the Canucks looked very much like a Cup contender with that display. The Canucks have always had a capable offense, now they're showing an impressive defense we didn't see much of in the regular season.

I'm encouraged now

SOS is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 10:19 PM
  #119
LaVal
Registered User
 
LaVal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
The Canucks were trapping in the final 10 minutes. Those who say otherwise are either blind or stupid. 1-4, 1-3-1, and 1-2-2 are all traps. 1 man in forecheck = Trap. Flat out.

That said, for the vast majority of all three games, the Canucks have been playing their usual 2-1-2.
1-2-2 is a standard formation. the number of forecheckers doesn't determine the trap... the players in the neutral zone do. you could have 2-3-0 or 0-3-2 and it would still be a trap. for the trap to be executed you need a neutral-zone defender for every forward on the attack. on 5 on 5 you need 3 in the neutral zone or you are outnumbered and the trap fails. this is why it is said to beat the trap you have to activate your defense on the rush.

the Canucks were using a 1-4-0 system in the neutral zone just before their blueline, therefor it becomes a 1-4 low trap. the forechecker angles the play to the least susseptable side and the others stand the line and force the dump-in.

LaVal is offline  
Old
04-12-2004, 11:52 PM
  #120
islandnucker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ladysmith
Country: Poland
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islandnucker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Sorry about that. But there are key differences between the two hits.

Jovo went down into the lower boards, he was hit farther away from the boards than Iginla was. Iginla hit the divider between the glass and boards face first. Consider this; if he didn't wear his visor, he would have been terribly injured or worse.
I don't know Zoidberg, I'm not really liking that logic. I could very easily say that because Jovo hit the boards lower down his back/neck were at more of an angle and it was more possible for him to get his neck broken.

islandnucker is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.